Hi. On Friday 17 February 2006 07:53, Pavel Machek wrote: > > First we had swsusp... For many people it did not work, so > > ...no; for many people it was too slow and not nice enough... > > > Suspend2 was developed, but was not merged mainly because it > > had too many UI components in-kernel. > > ...and because Nigel did not care about mainline for a *long* time. Actually, it was more that I didn't want to try to merge something that was still very much work in progress. You didn't seem to be doing any development on what was merged, so I didn't foresee any problems with just replacing it once suspend(1|2|2.1|2.2) became mature. Patrick changed that, and then you did too. And I learnt about the "merge early, merge often" mantra late in the game. If I knew then what I know now... but I didn't. Regards, Nigel
Attachment:
pgp6wu0pv0QS5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Alon Bar-Lev <[email protected]>
- Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Fix undefined symbols for nommu architecture --improved version
- Next by Date: Re: Kernel oops: 2.6.16-rc3-mm1 dvd mount
- Previous by thread: Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Next by thread: Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)
- Index(es):